How We Evaluate iGaming Payment Providers

Last updated: February 12, 2026

What We Evaluate

We track 20 payment providers across six scoring dimensions. Each dimension receives a score from 1.0 to 10.0. The overall score is a weighted average, not a simple mean, because in iGaming payments, not everything matters equally.

This page explains exactly how we arrive at each provider's rating so you can decide whether our framework matches your priorities. If it doesn't, you'll at least know which dimensions to re-weight for your own shortlist.

20

Providers reviewed

6

Scoring dimensions

Weighted scoring

Updated quarterly

iGaming Fit

25%

How well a provider serves licensed gambling operators specifically. Not general payment processing capability.

  • Ready-made platform integrations (SoftSwiss, EveryMatrix, Bragg, Slotegrator)
  • Dedicated iGaming team or treats gambling as one vertical among many
  • Client portfolio: processing for licensed operators or just claiming they can
  • Accepts high-risk gambling merchants without third-party acquirers

A provider with 500 payment methods but no iGaming platform connectors scores lower here than a smaller provider with native SoftSwiss and EveryMatrix integrations. Coverage means nothing if you can't plug it in.

Geographic Coverage

20%

Where the provider can actually process gambling transactions. Not general availability, but regulated gambling acquiring.

  • Number of local acquiring markets (not just 'supported countries' from marketing)
  • Regional strengths: European SEPA vs. LatAm local methods vs. Asian e-wallets
  • Direct acquiring vs. aggregated through third parties
  • Direct acquiring typically means better approval rates and lower costs

A provider claiming "200+ countries" through a single offshore acquirer scores differently than one with local acquiring in 50 markets. We dig into the how, not just the where.

Security & Compliance

20%

The full compliance stack for a regulated industry processing in a regulated payment environment.

  • PCI DSS certification level
  • Financial authority licenses (FCA, CBI, MAS, etc.)
  • Gambling-specific licenses supported (MGA, UKGC, Isle of Man, Curacao)
  • Fraud prevention tools (3D Secure, AI fraud scoring, velocity checks)
  • KYC/AML automation level
  • Responsible gaming tool integration

Providers that automate KYC and integrate with responsible gaming frameworks get higher marks. In iGaming, compliance isn't a feature. It's operational infrastructure.

Fees & Total Cost

15%

The full cost picture beyond published rate cards. We calculate a Total Cost of Ownership estimate.

  • Deposit processing fees (percentage + fixed)
  • Withdrawal fees
  • Rolling reserve percentage and hold period
  • FX markup on cross-currency transactions
  • Setup fees, monthly minimums, chargeback fees
  • Contract lock-in terms

Why only 15% weight? Fees are almost always negotiable in iGaming payments, and a provider with higher published rates but better approval rates or faster settlement often costs less in practice.

Technology & Integration

10%

How quickly you can go live, and what the technical experience looks like day-to-day.

  • Integration methods (API, SDK, hosted, plugins)
  • Documentation quality (we review actual API docs, not just check if they exist)
  • Sandbox and test environment availability
  • Typical integration timeline for high-risk merchants
  • Smart routing and orchestration capabilities
  • Reporting/reconciliation automation

A provider with clean REST API documentation, a working sandbox, and 2-week integration time scores very differently from one with PDF-only docs and a 6-week onboarding.

User Trust

10%

What actual users say about this provider. Trustpilot ratings, merchant feedback, reliability track record.

  • Trustpilot rating and review count (with link to live page)
  • Publicly available merchant feedback
  • Documented uptime and reliability issues
  • Dispute resolution reputation

Lowest weight for a reason. Trustpilot ratings for B2B payment providers are noisy. A provider with a 1.2 rating might have excellent B2B service but terrible consumer-facing support for their wallet product.

Score Scale

Every dimension uses the same 1.0 – 10.0 scale

9.0–10.0
Best-in-class. Sets the benchmark across all providers we track.
7.0–8.9
Strong. Meets or exceeds what most operators need.
5.0–6.9
Adequate. Gets the job done with notable limitations.
3.0–4.9
Weak. Likely a dealbreaker unless other dimensions compensate.
1.0–2.9
Insufficient. Significant gaps that create operational risk.

How We Score

The Weighted Formula

Overall = iGaming Fit (25%) + Geo Coverage (20%) + Security (20%) + Fees (15%) + Tech (10%) + User Trust (10%)

We deliberately chose not to use a simple average. An operator choosing a PSP cares far more about whether the provider can actually process gambling transactions in their target markets than about the Trustpilot star rating. The weights reflect that reality.

Why Not Equal?

Because a provider scoring 10/10 on technology but 3/10 on iGaming Fit is useless to a gambling operator. Equal weighting would average that out to something respectable. Our weighting surfaces the truth: you can't use a provider that doesn't serve your industry, no matter how good their API docs are.

Where Our Data Comes From

Provider documentation

Official websites, API docs, published pricing, compliance certifications. What the provider says about themselves. We treat it as the starting point, not the conclusion.

Regulatory filings

We verify licensing claims against actual regulator databases. If a provider claims an MGA license, we check the MGA registry. Claims without verifiable entries are noted.

Trustpilot & public reviews

We link directly to each provider's Trustpilot page. We report the rating and review count as-is and note significant patterns in the feedback.

Industry knowledge

Understanding of how iGaming payment processing works: typical negotiation ranges, realistic integration timelines, common operator pain points.

What we don't have (yet)

We don't currently run payments through each provider's system ourselves. Our assessments are based on documented capabilities, verified credentials, and market intelligence, not hands-on integration testing. We're working toward adding first-hand testing data, and we'll note it clearly when we do.

Conflicts of Interest

If we have an affiliate or commercial relationship with any provider we review, we disclose it on the relevant review page. Our scoring methodology doesn't change based on commercial relationships. We don't accept payment for higher scores, and we don't give providers editorial review before publication.

Update Frequency

We review each provider quarterly and update when material changes occur. Every page shows a "Last verified" date. Spot something outdated? Let us know.

What We Don't Cover

  • ×Consumer-facing features of wallet products (Skrill cashback, Neteller VIP tiers)
  • ×Provider suitability for industries outside gambling (retail, SaaS, travel)
  • ×Providers exclusively serving unlicensed or gray-market operators
  • ×White-label casino platforms or game providers. Only the payment layer

Using Our Reviews

Our scores reflect how well each provider serves a licensed iGaming operator choosing a primary or secondary PSP. Your mileage will vary based on:

Processing volume

Providers that score well for $5M/month may not be accessible to operators processing $50k/month.

Target markets

A provider scoring 9/10 globally might score 5/10 for your specific LatAm-only operation.

Regulatory environment

Your licensing jurisdiction determines which providers can serve you. A perfect score is worthless if they don't support your license.

We provide the framework and the data. The final decision is yours, and it should be, because nobody knows your operation's constraints better than you do.

Questions About Our Methodology?

If something doesn't make sense or you think we're weighting the wrong things, we want to hear it. Reach out at sup@igamingpaymentsolutions.com.